Shadi: wasn't planning to show this page --
it's reqs for the BAD *web site* for use internally by the BAD task force.
We've had a lot of discussion since then and in order to have a resource
suite that has the same sort of structure to extant resource suites, SHadi
was creating these new, concise requirements in the changelog that we can use
as goals to assess against at the end of the project. A lot of the content in
the new Changelog reqs...

Shadi (cont): come from the old retrofit doc reqs.

Judy: new parts are the use cases, and we need
to develop clarity in the goals of the evaluation report.

Shadi: so this isn;t a diff, we just need to
get everything we need into the changelog reqs.

Judy: especially the evaluation report as we
keep getting stuck on it. *Then* we can go look at the use cases.
... are we clearly identifying the purpose of the evaluation report?

Barry: 'Purpose' reads as a resource
description, not a purpose. The purpose is now to be found in satisfying the
use cases.

Eric has joined the meeting

Helle: agree with Barry

<shawn> liam: proving a benchmark against
which you can judge other evaluations

<shawn> Judy: what's the purpose of the
Eval Report?

Henny: Showing how to apply the guidelines in
the real world.

Shawn: is that for the evaluation report or
overall?

Henny: evaluation report.

Liam: showing how to make best use of existing
W3C WAI resources

Jack: giving one example of an evaluation
report

<judy> showing how to id and explain the
barriers on a site

Shawn: should it be something people can cut
and paste from?

<judy> providing a reusable template

Liam: previous disagreement was over whether
evaluation includes solutions or is merely a pass/fail audit.

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to ask (later)
about "A comprehensive and model evaluation report explains the accessibility
issues and possibilities for repairing them."

Liam: we should try to do something we can get
out quickly

<shawn> shawn: Is the goal to be a template
that people can cut & paste?

Shadi: I disagree -- checkpoints missing for
Priority 2 are only a handful of checkpoints, mainly multimedia and similar.
The amount of work to include these is minimal.

Doyle: agree with Shadi, but not as strongly

William: agree with Shadi, but more strongly.
Template better than quick and dirty.

Justin: People will use it as a template
regardless of our intentions.

Henk: this should demonstrate, but we shouldn't
leave out any checkpoints. The report should be highly specific to this
particular web site, not cut-n-paste.
... this should be something a client could expect to receive from an
evaluator.
... if it was completely comprehensive it would be artificial?

Pasquale: agree with Shadi and Justin -- put
all the checkpoints in the report.

Shadi: restate the question: what is the target
level? Currently WCAG priority 2.

pasquale: we need a site that is WAI compliant
so we should pass all checkpoints (up to p3).

pasquale (correction): p2

<shawn> ISSUE: What to do about P2
checkpoints that are not applicable on this BAD site? (that is, include
"template" text for them or not)

<shadi> liam: could test against all
checkpoints, including p3 but only repair to p2

Liam: Liam: we can test against all
checkpoints, set n/a for checkpoints n/a and repair to priority 2.

<shawn> william +1

<shawn> shawn +1

Wayne: this is an educational tool, not a
template. E.g. if there are a lot of n/a checkpoints then people are going to
get lost. I vote for example site, not template site.

Judy: would it be acceptable to keep the scope
of this one narrower, keeping this as a good demo and go back to it to work
it up into a template?

Jack: yes, if in the sample report we made sure
that we included a disclaimer so that people don;t think it's a comprehensive
disclaimer, and secondly a clear pointer to the real template somewhere
else.

<Zakim> Helle, you wanted to ask wayne

Helle: annoying to see all the n/a checkpoints,
but need to note that we only list checkpoints that are relevant on the
site.

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to even question
not P3 and to note that in retrofitting we say also look at easy P3 issues

Shawn: you should list all checkpoints. Almost
all p1 and p2 are relevant, so few n/a's. In a true sample report you
wouldn't discuss them but you *would* list them.
... don't forget there are often easy p3 fixes which may be addressed.

<shadi> liam: if we put disclaimers, we
should note that no user testing was done

<shawn> ah!

<shawn> propose: List all checkpoints. Not
provide descriptions for not applicable checkpoints. Task force re-consider
Priority 3 Checkpoints and bring back to EOWG.

Wayne: possible compromise would be to list
'other guidelines not applicable to this site'

s/???/Wayne

Judy: suggest that purpose of report is not to
provide a complete template for an evaluation report.

Shawn: propose: purpose not a complete template
but that we do list all checkpoints but put n/a to those which are n/a and
don't describe those.

<shadi> proposal: evaluate all checkpoints
(including p3), but only provide descriptions for checkpoints that are
relevant to the demo site, and repair for priority 2

Shadi: propose: evaluate all checkpoints
including p3 but only provide description for checkpoints that are relevant
to the demo site and repair for p2

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to ask for which
P3 not met

liam: access keys?

<shawn> yes, I object to not repairing P3
(unless further discussed)

<shadi> proposal: evaluate all checkpoints
(including p3) and list all results in the checklist, but only provide
descriptions for checkpoints that are relevant to the demo site

<Harvey> Could alert for access keys with
pointer to resource for awareness

Group: re proposal: agreed

<shadi> resolution: evaluate all
checkpoints (including p3) and list all results in the checklist, but only
provide descriptions for checkpoints that are relevant to the demo site

<shadi> resolution: don't head for a
template style for the evaluation report, but keep it simple for now
(template maybe taken as its own project depending on EOWG priorities)

Judy: we are specifically discussing and
understanding sensitivities, not voting on humour.
... first one is the suggestion that a Vet mate with a Panda, followed up by
an allusion to artificial insemination by a 'D-list celebrity'
... second is use of 'organ donation', suggested change to 'brain
donation'
... Third is pickling pandas.

Fourth is use of 'neonate'.

Judy: 'neo' can also be used with negative
political connotations.
... an example of awkward cross-cultural words is 'collaborator'
... the news page is mainly the area we need to look at

Shadi: time is running short. There is an email
linked from the agenda listing four items that were the ones in question. We
need to confirm which really are a problem and identify exactly the problem
with each.

William: our version of what is acceptable is
not the issue. It's making sure we are considering other people's
sensibilities.

Jack: Agree with William but at a loss as to
what is offensive about these.